"It's
disturbing and puzzling news: Death rates are rising for white,
less-educated Americans. The economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton reported
in December that rates have been climbing since 1999 for non-Hispanic
whites age 45 to 54, with the largest increase occurring among the least
educated. An analysis of death certificatesby The New York Times found similar trends and showed that the rise may extend to white women.Both
studies attributed the higher death rates to increases in poisonings
and chronic liver disease, which mainly reflect drug overdoses and
alcohol abuse, and to suicides. In contrast, death rates fell overall
for blacks and Hispanics.Why
are whites overdosing or drinking themselves to death at higher rates
than African-Americans and Hispanics in similar circumstances? Some
observers have suggested that higher rates of chronic opioid prescriptionscould be involved, along withwhites’ greater pessimism about their finances.Yet
I’d like to propose a different answer: what social scientists call
reference group theory. The term “reference group” was pioneered by the
social psychologist Herbert H. Hyman in 1942, and the theory was developed
by the Columbia sociologist Robert K. Merton in the 1950s. It tells us
that to comprehend how people think and behave, it’s important to
understand the standards to which they compare themselves.How
is your life going? For most of us, the answer to that question means
comparing our lives to the lives our parents were able to lead. As
children and adolescents, we closely observed our parents. They were our
first reference group.And
here is one solution to the death-rate conundrum: It’s likely that many
non-college-educated whites are comparing themselves to a generation
that had more opportunities than they have,whereas many blacks and
Hispanics are comparing themselves to a generation that had fewer
opportunities.When
whites without college degrees look back, they can often remember
fathers who were sustained by the booming industrial economy of postwar
America.Since then, however, the industrial job market has slowed
significantly.Thehourly wages of male high school graduates declined
by 14 percent from 1973 to 2012, according to analysis of data from the
Economic Policy Institute. Although high school educated white women
haven’t experienced the same major reversal of the job market, they may
look at their husbands — or, if they are single, to the men they choose
not to marry — and reason that life was better when they were growing
up.African-Americans,
however, didn’t get a fair share of the blue-collar prosperity of the
postwar period. They may look back to a time when discrimination
deprived their parents of equal opportunities. Many Hispanics may look
back to the lower standard of living their parents experienced in their
countries of origin. Whites are likely to compare themselves to a
reference group that leads them to feel worse off. Blacks and Hispanics
compare themselves to reference groups that may make them feel better
off.The
sociologist Timothy Nelson and I observed this phenomenon in interviews
with high-school-educated young adult men in 2012 and 2013. A
35-year-old white man who did construction jobs said, “It’s much harder
for me as a grown man than it was for my father.” He remembered his
father saying that back when he was 35, “‘I had a house and I had five
kids or four kids.’ You know, ‘Look where I was at.’ And I’m like,
‘Well, Dad, things have changed.’”African-American
men were more upbeat.One said: “I think there are better opportunities
now because first of all, the economy’s changing. The color barrier is
not as harsh as it was back then.”In
addition, national surveys show striking racial and ethnic differences
in satisfaction with one’s social standing relative to one’s parents.
The General Social Survey conducted by the research organization NORC at
the University of Chicago has asked Americans in its biennial surveys
to compare their standard of living to that of their parents. In 2014,
according to my analysis, among 25- to 54-year-olds without college
degrees, blacks and Hispanics were much more positive than whites: 67
percent of African-Americans and 68 percent of Hispanics responded “much
better” or “somewhat better,” compared with 47 percent of whites.Those
figures represent a reversal from 2000, when whites were more positive
than blacks, 64 percent to 60 percent. (Hispanics were the most positive
in nearly all years.)

But
we size ourselves up based on more than just our parents. White workers
historically have compared themselves against black workers, taking
some comfort in seeing a group that was doing worse than them. Now,
however, the decline of racial restrictions in the labor market and the
spread of affirmative action have changed that. Non-college-graduate
whites in the General Social Survey are more likely to agree that
“conditions for black people have improved” than are comparable blacks
themselves, 68 percent to 53 percent.Reference
group theory explains why people who have more may feel that they have
less. What matters is to whom you are comparing yourself. It’s not that
white workers are doing worse than African-Americans or Hispanics.In the fourth quarter of 2015, the median weekly earnings
[BLS] of white men aged 25 to 54 were $950, well above the same figure for
black men ($703) and Hispanic men ($701). But for some whites — perhaps
the ones who account for the increasing death rate —that may be beside
the point. Their main reference group is their parents’ generation, and
by that standard they have little to look forward to and a lot to
lament."

"Andrew J. Cherlin is a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University and the
author of “Labor’s Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working-Class
Family in America.”"

10/3/1988"League Refuses to "Help Perpetrate a Fraud," League of Women Voters, News Release, lwv.org, For Immediate Release, Washington, DC"LEAGUE REFUSES TO "HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD" "WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FROM FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE""The League of Women Voters is
withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for
mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations
would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter," League President
Nancy M. Neuman said today."It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to
add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of
substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman
said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the
hoodwinking of the American public."

Neuman said that the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns'
agreement was negotiated "behind closed doors" and was presented to
the League as "a done deal," she said, its 16 pages of conditions not
subject to negotiation.Most objectionable to the League, Neuman said, were conditions in the
agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the
proceedings. Neuman called "outrageous" the campaigns' demands that
they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the
audience, hall access for the press and other issues."The campaigns' agreement is a closed-door masterpiece," Neuman
said. "Never in the history of the League of Women Voters have two
candidates' organizations come to us with such stringent, unyielding
and self-serving demands."

Neuman said she and the League regretted that the American people
have had no real opportunities to judge the presidential nominees
outside of campaign-controlled environments."On the threshold of a new millenium, this country remains the
brightest hope for all who cherish free speech and open debate,"
Neuman said. "Americans deserve to see and hear the men who would be
president face each other in a debate on the hard and complex issues
critical to our progress into the next century." Neuman issued a final challenge to both Vice President Bush and
Governor Dukakis to "rise above your handlers and agree to join us in
presenting the fair and full discussion the American public expects of
a League of Women Voters debate."

"Sixty-six million viewers watched the nation’s premiere televised
presidential debate, a September 26, 1960, primetime event featuring
John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. It was paid for by three major
television networks, but broadcast regulations prevented them from
continuing their sponsorship in the next several elections. In 1976, the
independent League of Women Voters,a nonpartisan organization
dedicated to citizen education, took over.

The League hosted three
debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and one between their
running mates, and sponsored debates in the 1980 and 1984 elections as
well. The debates became part of the quadrennial election process, but
the League’s management style ruffled some feathers among party insiders
who wanted more control of the process. Republican David Norcross, who
helped form the Commission, called the League’s debate organizers “too
dictatorial” and criticized them for “ignoring or avoiding the politics
of the whole situation.”...

Then, as Connie
Rice, a prominent Los Angeles-based civil rights lawyer and commentator
on National Public Radio, characterizes it, “The debates were hijacked.”
In 1988, the two major political parties seized control — against the
wishes of the League of Women Voters. The Democratic and Republican
national committees argued in a joint press release that their
co-sponsorship would “better fulfill our party responsibilities to
inform and educate the electorate, strengthen the role of political
parties in the electoral process and, most important of all . . .
institutionalize the debates, making them an integral and permanent part
of the presidential debate process.” Rather than trying to change the
way the League ran the debates, the two national party chairmen simply
“commissioned” their own “independent” debate entity — and put
themselves in charge.

With that, the Commission on Presidential
Debates came into existence, led by then-Democratic National Committee
Chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr. and then-Republican National Committee
Chairman Frank H. Fahrenkopf Jr. They hired one full-time employee, a
Republican former Senate staffer named Janet Brown. The three have led
the Commission since its inception, with a board of directors made up
primarily of committed partisans from the two major parties.The
Commission sponsors and produces the debates, picks the locations, sets
the rules, selects the moderators, and determines which candidates
participate.

Corporate sponsorship

Brown’s annual salary
($175,000 as of 2004 and 2005, paid even in non-election years) the
organization’s operating expenses and debate production costs are paid
by a small number of major donors. In 2004, the Commission took in over
$4.1 million, more than 93 percent of which came from just six
contributors. On the donor list provided to the Center for Public
Integrity, the Commission blanked out the names of all six. Nonprofit
organizations are not legally required to make this information public.The
organization’s website identifies 11 “national sponsors” of the 2004
debates, a majority of which are corporations. They include three
airlines, a cable television network, a company that helps businesses
and governments outsource information technology, and the self-crowned
king of the beer-making business, Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc., which
also sponsored several other debates in previous years. No stranger to a
good party, Anheuser-Busch supplemented its quadrennial contributions
to the Commission in the hours before the October 8, 2004, debate, in
its hometown of St. Louis, bytreating members of the media and other
VIPs to a tent party featuring sirloin steak, stuffed portobello
mushrooms, and, of course, plenty of beer.The sponsorships have
drawn significant criticism, most ardently from Open Debates, a
nonprofit, nonpartisan group that describes itself as working to “ensure
that the presidential debates serve the American people first.” Instead
of serving the people, the group argues, the Commission serves its
corporate interests. Take the 1992 debates, it points out, during which
the Commission allowed its $250,000 sponsor, Philip Morris, to hang a
promotional banner in an area visible in post-debate interviews. And for
its $550,000 contribution in 2000, Anheuser-Busch was permitted at the
event to distribute pamphlets against taxes on beer. (According to the
beer industry’s lobbying group, the federal excise tax on beer has
remained unchanged since 1991.)Brown concedes that the Commission’s reliance on corporate sponsorship “seems to be . . . extraordinarily controversial,” but she told the Center
that the Commission is similar to most nonprofits in its fundraising
efforts — it seeks funding from foundations, corporations, individuals,
and the debate sites themselves. She insists that no funder has ever
asked for a topic or question to be introduced in the debates....Private organizations like the Commission
have a legal right to take money from whomever they want and to exclude
people from their events. But the concern among the Commission’s
critics is whether, as Open Debates argues, theevents once dedicated to
public education have become “a series of glorified bipartisan news
conferences” for the parties."... .........................

A former military officer with knowledge of NCA procedures helps fill in some of the details.

Let's
say that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) detects
an inbound air warning; the NMCC immediately calls the Sit Room or the
military aide, which plugs in the President, who then provides an
alpha-numeric code to verify his identity. Once verified, the President
can (to invoke ICBM language) execute or terminate sorties. The military
aide--known as the Milaide--goes everywhere with the President. Even
when the President travels in a hotel elevator, the Milaide (and the
president's doctor) accompany him. (Yes, every POTUS elevator trip is
monitored.)

So what happens if the President doesn't have his identifier?

The commander in chief of NORAD resorts to the next person the NCA list, the Vice President.

This
is a survival mechanism built in during the Cold War, in the event that
Washington was decapitated without warning in a nuclear strike. NORAD
continues down the list until it finds a capital P-Principle, who
provides that identifier and assumes the duties of the Commander in
Chief.

Sounds like no big deal, right?

Here's the
reality: Losing that identifier card had the potential to create a vast
disruption in nuclear command and control procedures.

So Al Gore
gets "the call" because Clinton can't properly ID himself. Gore is
confused, lives in Washington, knows the President is fine. He tells
NORAD to hold while he tracks down the President, who can't verify his
own identify anyway. Precious minutes (and I do mean precious, seconds
count in the nuke business) are lost while civilian and military
leadership sort things out.

And that says nothing of the fact
that the President would be in gross violation of his duties by allowing
the VP to execute an order that is lawfully the President's to make.
Once a strike is authorized by the NCA, the Chairman and Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pass the order to the U.S. Strategic
Command through the NMCC, or through an alternate command site, like
Site R in Liberty Township, PA, or through an airborne platform known as
TACAMO, which stands for "Take Charge and Move Out."

TACAMO's
fleet, operated by the Navy, consists of tricked-out Boeing E6-B
aircraft pre-positioned at six locations across the country. They're on
constant stand-by, ready to fly within 10 minutes of an alert. During
the Cold War, the code name for these missions was "Looking Glass," and
at least one airplane was in the air at all times. TACAMO planes are in
24/7 contact with America's fixed ballistic missile silos, its nuclear
subs, and its nuclear-weapon-equipped airplanes.

Don't confuse
these aircraft with the NAOC, or "Kneecap," four Air Force planes
designed to physically transport the NCA -- POTUS or whomever -- to
safety in an emergency. Wherever the President travels, a Boeing E4 is
not far behind. The planes also ferry other members of the NCA,
including SecDef, to international locations where they know they can
secure their communications if they need them.

If there's a
catastrophic attack on the seat of the United States government, the
planes, their crews, and special mission units are responsible for
ensuring that the surviving constitutional officer "becomes" the NCA
until the emergency is over. The NAOC planes keep in constant contact
with the NMCC, the White House's Presidential Emergency Operations
Center, the HMX-1 squadron that the President uses for helicopter
traffic, and various classified alternate command and control centers
worldwide. (Yes, worldwide.)

On 9/11, according to Shelton, a
NAOC plane was in the air, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
was evacuated to Site R, and various other continuity of government
measures were put into effect in case they were needed. That day, they
were not.

But the campaign, through its
lawyers, declined to provide the data, deciding that the FBI’s request
for sensitive personal and campaign information data was too broad and
intrusive, the source said.

A
second source who had been briefed on the matter and who confirmed the
Brooklyn meeting said agents provided no specific information to the
campaign about the identity of the cyberhackers or whether they were
associated with a foreign government. The source said the campaign was
already aware of attempts to penetrate its computers and had taken steps
to thwart them, emphasizing that there is still no evidence that the
campaign’s computers had actually been successfully penetrated.

But
the potential that the intruders were associated with a foreign
government should have come as no surprise to the Clinton campaign, said
several sources knowledgeable about the investigation.Chinese
intelligence hackerswere widely reported to have penetrated both the
campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008.

As
Yahoo News first reported this week, in early May a DNC consultant who
was investigating Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort’s work for
pro-Putin political figures in Ukraine alerted senior committee
officials that she had been notified by Yahoo security that her personal
email account had been targeted by “state-sponsored actors.” The DNC
had already realized that it was the victim of a serious breach, but the
red flag from the staffer prompted committee security officials to
conclude for the first time that the suspected cyberhackers were likely
associated with the Russian government.

By mid-May, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was telling reporters that US. Intelligence officials “already had some indications” of hacks into political campaigns that were likely linked to foreign governments and that “we’ll probably have more.”

Clapper’s
comments come amid a mounting debate within the Obama administration
about whether to publicly blame the Russian government for the
cyberattack on the DNC. (A senior law enforcement official told Yahoo
News that the Russians were “most probably” involved in the cyberattack,
but cautioned that the investigation is ongoing.) On Wednesday, Sen.
Dianne Feinstein of California and California Rep. Adam Schiff, the
ranking Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, wrote
President Obama calling for a stern response, asserting that if the
accounts of Russian involvement are true, “It would represent an
unprecedented attempt to meddle in American domestic politics.”

The
confirmation that the campaign was warned by the FBI as early as March
of an attempted breach of its computers is a further indication that the
scope of the possible Russian attack may have been far wider and
extensive than the official DNC accounts.

The
FBI’s request to turn over internal computer logs and personal email
information came at an awkward moment for the Clinton campaign, said the
source, familiar with the campaign’s internal deliberations. At the
time, the FBI was still actively and aggressively conducting a criminal
investigation into whether Clinton had compromised national security
secrets by sending classified emails through a private computer server
in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, N.Y. There were already press
reports, to date unconfirmed, that the investigation might have expanded
to include dealings relating to the Clinton Foundation. Campaign
officials had reason to fear that any production of campaign computer
logs and personal email accounts could be used to further such a probe.
At the Brooklyn meeting, FBI agents emphasized that the request for data
was unrelated to the separate probe into Clinton’s email server. But
after deliberating about the bureau’s request, and in light of the lack
of details provided by the FBI and the absence of a subpoena, the
Clinton campaign chose to turn down the bureau’s request, the source
said."

Obama made the comments as he stood with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen
Harper during his first trip abroad as president. The two pledged
cooperation on efforts to stimulate the economy, fight terrorism in Afghanistan and develop clean energy technology.

In a joint news conference, Obama said he wants to find a way to keep
his campaign pledge to toughen labor and environmental standards -- and
told Harper so -- but stressed that nothing should disrupt the free flow
of tradebetween neighbors. [NAFTA includes the US, Canada and Mexico]............"Now is a time where we've got to be very careful about any signals of
protectionism," the president said. "Because, as the economy of the
world contracts, I think there's going to be a strong impulse on the
part of constituencies in all countries to see if we -- they can engage
in beggar-thy-neighbor policies." ...........The president's message served as a reminder oflast year's private
assessment by Canadian officials that then-candidate Obama's frequent
criticism of NAFTA was nothing more than campaign speeches aimed at
chasing support among Rust Belt union workers.

"I am happy for him to frame his way of positioning the issue any way he
wants, as long as he actually delivers on the issue," said Lori
Wallach, the director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch division.
"If down the road Obama doesn't deliver on the policy, there will be a
whole lot of really upset people.""...

[Ed. note: He blew you off, Ms. Wallach, scolded you with globalist cliches on the global stage. He knew he could pass ten NAFTA's, causing immense human suffering both in the US and Mexico, and people like you would never leave him. There isn't the slightest chance any globalist would trim a free trade deal. This is just common sense.] ............(continuing): "(p. 2) The trade discussion came as Canadians have expressed concern in recent
days about the "Buy American" provision that Congress added to the $787
billion stimulus package that Obama signed into law this week........ Harper said he has "every expectation" that the United States will abide
by trade rules that forbid such preferences. But he used strong
language to indicate how seriously the country takes that issue. ........ "If we pursue stimulus packages, the goal of which is only to benefit
ourselves, or to benefit ourselves, worse, at the expense of others, we
will deepen the world recession, not solve it," he said.
Obama and Harper also pledged to work together to battle terrorism,
especially in Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers have been fighting
and dying for years. ..........In his first public comments since sending an additional 17,000 troops
to the war-torn country earlier this week, Obama said that "it was
necessary to stabilize the situation there in advance of the elections
that are coming up."....... The president declined to say how long the troops will remain there,
citing a 60-day review he has ordered. Harper also declined to say
whether his country's troops will remain beyond 2011, but said the
long-term goal of the war should be constrained. ..........."We are not in the long term, through our own efforts, going to
establish peace and security in Afghanistan. That, that job, ultimately,
can be done only by the Afghans themselves," he said.
..........The president's trip to Canada was a traditional visit early in his
term. The snow may have subtly reminded him of campaigning in the
Midwest, as he said he was pleased "to be here in Iowa -- Ottawa." ...........He disappointed many Canadians who had hoped to see him at a public
event. Instead, he waved briefly to a crowd of about 2,000 waiting in
the snow as he walked to his meetings. ..........He did surprise reporters with a brief stop at a converted indoor
farmers market in a historic stretch of Ottawa afterward. He bought a
keychain with Canadian currency, telling reporters that he was
continuing a tradition of buying knickknacks when he travels.
Obama and Harper also pledged cooperation to revive North America's
closely linked economy and signed an agreement to work toward developing
clean energy technology. ..........."It will advance carbon reduction technologies. And it will support the
development of an electric grid that can help deliver the clean and
renewable energy of the future to homes and businesses, both in Canada
and the United States," Obama said."

"Understanding America Study"

"The 2016 USC Dornsife / LA Times Presidential Election Pollrepresents a pioneering approach to tracking changes in Americans'
opinions throughout a campaign for the White House. Around 3000
respondents in our representative panel are asked questions on a regular
basis on what they care about most in the election, and on their
attitudes toward their preferred candidates. The "Daybreak poll" is
updated just after midnight every day of the week."...

Later, McAuliffe’s spokesman sought to clarify the governor’s remarks
after this story published,saying he was simply expressing what he
wants Clinton to do if she is elected president. “While Governor
McAuliffe is a supporter of the TPP, he has no expectation Secretary
Clinton would change her position on the legislation and she has never
told him anything to that effect.”A top Clinton campaign official said the Democratic nominee never
told McAuliffe she would be open to changing her position on TPP -- and
campaign chairman John Podesta confirmed to POLITICO she never said
anything like that to her longtime ally. “Love Gov. McAuliffe, but he
got this one flat wrong,” Podesta tweeted.

“Hillary opposes TPP BEFORE
and AFTER the election. Period. Full stop.”

The battle over TPP was one of the most notable to erupt on the floor
of the convention Monday, as Sanders delegates protested the fact thatlanguage opposing the trade deal was excluded from the party platform.

McAuliffe said he feels confident Democrats will win back the Senate
and even win back 30 seats in the House and be able to pass a tweaked
version of the trade deal supported by President Obama. “If we get
enough things done, enough opportunities to change TPP, I’m optimistic
going forward,” he said. "We cannot let China write these rules for 11
other countries.”

Even as protesters headed for the exits of the Wells Fargo Center
after the roll call made Clinton's nomination official, McAuliffe
insisted the party was still on the road to unity.

"Sen. Sanders was a true champion," McAuliffe said. "He sent out
texts, his speech last night said we have to come together. He's done
everything we've asked him to do. This is a hard business, it just takes
time. I think this convention made a lot of progress."".........

[Ed. note: It's not a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue. Those labels no longer apply. Labor union officials are supposedly "liberal," are on record that TPP would hurt workers, but strongly support TPP for their own reasons. As the article describes, "the labor unionsacted
as a political shield for the White House" making sure no language against TPP appeared in the Democrat platform.]

(continuing): ""We are proud to stand with our friends in
organized labor in passing a strong amendment to the Democratic platform
on all trade deals, including the TPP," said Clinton aide Maya Harris,
who is quarterbacking her campaign's platform efforts....Both Sanders and Hillary Clinton oppose the TPP"...

(CNN) "President Obama has been pushing hard for the deal, while Democrats in
the House of Representatives on Friday revolted and voted against a key
part of the legislation. One told me, "there was a very strong concern
about the lost jobs and growing income inequality," adding, pointedly:"Ms. Clinton should take notice." She clearly did. After first dodging the issue, on Sunday in Iowa, Clinton said
that "the President should listen to and work with his allies in
Congress, starting with (House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, who have
expressed their concerns....Clinton said, "there are some specifics
in there that could and should be changed. So I am hoping that's what
happens now --let's take the lemons and turn it into lemonade." But
as members of the Obama administration can attest, Clinton was one of
the leading drivers of the TPP when Secretary of State."

[Ed. note: Obama? Obama will be gone in a few months. Doesn't the author wonder why a Democrat platform to go into effect after Obama is gone has to be what Obama would've wanted?] (continuing): "Most votes occurred along party lines, with a handful of defections on both sides depending on the vote. AFSCME President Lee Saunders, acting on behalf
of pro-Clinton labor unions, which make up the vast majority of the
labor movement, proposed the amendment that ultimately succeeded.The 452-word amendment, which labor leaders felt
went as far as possible without running afoul of the White House, lays
out numerous restrictions desired for trade deals. But it does not
oppose the TPP....

Comment: Sanders helped the Democrat Party out of a bind. They needed to appear to have someone running "against" Mrs. Bill Clinton. At the first "debate," Sanders almost blew it when he melted and said he didn't want to talk about emails. Nice to be able to run unopposed......................